2013電影節心水

又到電影節時節。

今年中文片嘅陣容實在太誇張,令往常睇紀錄片、日本片為主嘅我都忍唔住要睇。暫時選擇如下:

胭脂扣:數碼化高清、哥哥、阿梅。Enough said.
大渡海:卡士強勁,小田切讓、宮崎葵、松田龍平,故事卻係講一班文人編辭典嘅經歷。有趣。
旺角卡門:當年無入場,家陣補返。
花瓣舞:主要係因為宮崎葵而揀,後311女性情懷,應該啱睇嘅。
大浩劫:應該會係最詳細講Holocaust嘅紀錄片,前、後篇九小時盤腸血戰。
沙漠梟雄:雖然屋企剛購入五十周年藍光版,但仍然會喺文化中心大劇院個大screen睇呢個8K修復版。相信感覺會比當年喺戲院睇更震撼。
閃靈237:寇比力克諸作品中,閃靈係其中一套心愛。紀錄片嘗試用唔同角度分析戲裏嘅細節,係陰謀論定係分析過度?觀眾自有定奪。
沒有蜜蜂的日子:一直有留意近年蜜蜂大量死亡嘅情況。呢套紀錄片以人類、蜜蜂、全球化生產去分析死亡事件嘅種種,值得一睇。
波蘭斯基的告白:入場原因只有四個字 – 波蘭斯基。
祖之根:日本311地震後,一個老災民嘅重建之路。

2012電影節記事 – 我的選擇

已有多時未寫過電影節。過去兩年展期都比較忙,看不了多少戲,自然寫不了。今年希望會好一點吧。

今年有點貪心,選了共十五部。選擇方面,一如以往,紀錄片、小型制作劇情片、日本片、動畫。

G系機械人
破曉之海
舞動奇葩
相馬看花
空鞘武士
一命
藍藍的深海
壓制的森林
十三刺客
小桃の奇幻手紙
的士司機
英雄叛國記
幕末太陽傳
失樂園3之煉獄篇
無臉的眼

2010香港國際電影節觀影 (其之一) – 國際短片競賽節目(二)/京都太秦物語

今年只是買了五場的票,明顯比往年少。年紀漸大,已没有精力應付一日三場的戲。又因為事忙的關係,買了票卻錯過了米高堅的Harry Brown,有點可惜。總觀只能看四場。

反之,由美國總領事館和藝術中心合辦的AFI Project 20/20,我卻已經留了三場的位子。難不成是因為免費的關係?

無論如何,前天看了兩場:國際短片競賽節目(二)京都太秦物語

國際短片競賽節目(二)

看這一齣的動機很簡單:我是為了看同場加映《香港四重奏》之一,邱禮濤的《生炒糯米飯》而來。結果並沒有令我失望,拍出香港風味,亦能帶出吾等七十後對街邊小食的懷念。畫面穿插當年香港六七暴動、保釣運動的剪影,導演在之後的問答環節時說只為帶出時代背景(但大家可以自行想像 – 這是我加的)。故事的街景在永利街拍攝,導演指拍攝時已知有同業在同一地點取景,但並不知道是羅啟銳歲月神偷

抱著只看加映作品的心態,入場前對其他短片自然未有多大的注意,可是其中有驚喜,亦有看得一頭霧水的。《Mr Sakurai at the Ticket Counter》和《Mira》,我實在看不懂。《Beast》所提及的家庭暴力,以至小主角對父親暴虐的反抗,令人心寒,因為同樣的事,天天都在發生。《Paradise Later》以印尼的一條「垃圾河」為背景,對盲目發展提出控訴,訊息強而有力。

個人最喜歡Thomas Lo的《Cocktail Definition》和Eric Gross的《The Fortune Writer》。《Cocktail Definition》中的髮型師和酒保,一起尋找能形容不同女性特質的雞尾酒,爆笑而言之有物。順帶一提,因為片子在香港拍攝,導演找來的女性扮演不同雞尾酒形容的女性特質。這群女角,比起Bijin Tokei香港版找來的女性們,漂亮多了~

《The Fortune Writer》所探討的是fortune cookie(幸運簽語餅)的問題。有些人會說,簽語餅的內文是很直接地和你身邊的事、人有關係。有沒有想過這是為什麼?這片子為你帶來其中一個可能性。很喜歡廚房員工Kirby的細心,以及面對心上人的勇氣。

京都太秦物語

京都太秦物語 》原本叫《京都太秦戀物語》。我覺得後者都不錯,雖然老土了一點。顧名思義,故事以京都市郊的太秦為舞台。故事講述在立命館大學任職圖書管理員的東出京子,她的男友、初哥棟篤笑藝人梁瀬康太,大學客座教授榎大地,以至太秦大映通り商店街的街坊們的日常故事。

一眾街坊由真人扮回自己,連主角角色的父母亦是真人上陣。另外,除了骨幹的工作人員以外,其餘人員均為導演之一的山田洋次的學生,所以除了是一齣商業電影之外,亦是一眾學生們參與商業製作的黄金機會,加上太秦的市民們,完全是一個集體創作的實驗。亦因為有學生們參與訪問商店街的商户,得來不少細節,如兩位主角的家庭其實都有子女各一,亦面對和主角所面對有關前途、繼承家業與否的決擇問題。

雖然導演阿部勉明言另一位導演山田洋次的角色是指導為主,但不難發現戲中滲入了一些寅太郎式的幻想/狂想,如:教授對京子學生時代的(性)幻想、康太的Michael Jackson上身一人tap dance等,都很「搞笑」。

由於是比較輕鬆的愛情喜劇,看得蠻開心的。教授的分支比較沉重,因為他比較冒失而對事物太想當然,變得很衝動。他對京子的一見鐘情亦是十分地突兀,和整體故事有點不搭配。但回心一想,教授的衝動,和康太的「唔嗲唔吊」1 成了強烈對比,亦能解釋京子的決定的基礎。

太秦我沒有去過,只是在往返嵐山的路上經過幾次。以前的太秦是電影王國,今非昔比,現在最為人熟悉的只是太秦影畫村。但太秦的市街,和日本一般小鎮一樣,有點說不出的鄉土味,很舒服。下次去京都時,一定要去太秦一次。

如果不是昨天看了《蟹工船》,可能《京都太秦物語》會是今年電影節最喜歡的戲。晚點再談。

  1. 即吊兒郎當 []

29th HKIFF Series : Hotel Rwanda and Gunner Palace – Some thoughts (originally posted on 29/3/2005 2:10:00)

For this year’s Hong Kong International Film Festival, there are quite a bit of movies and documentaries that reflect on topics that did not make it to the news. Hotel Rwanda and Gunner Palace are two of them.

Gunner Palace – an Oxymoron?

Mike Tucker has arrived Baghdad right after Bush declared end of “major combat” in Iraq. He has joined the 2/3 Field Artillery, First Armor Division, US Army, a.k.a. “Gunners”, for an insider look at what is like to be an American soldier in Baghdad. Surrounded by a nation of people who see the US military, as a collective, as the evil conqueror of Iraq, their job has turned from being artillerymen to security guard, drill sergeant, police detective and target rolled into one. For the Gunners, in the surreal world that is Iraq, their billet was a former pleasure palace of Uday Hussein, son of Saddam Hussein. Hence the name of the documentary, Gunner Palace.

The style of the documentary is from the same perspective that the troopers had, since Tucker followed them out on patrols, as well as catching glimpses of the soldiers’ life inside the palace. There was little music to constitute a score, but that wasn’t necessary. The soldiers’ rap talk, poetry and their guitars playing provided a musical perspective to their frustration and opinion on the war, like Rumsfield’s refusal to provide armor upgrade kits for Humvees.

This is very much a “behind-the-scene” view of the days after Second Iraqi War, from the eyes of grunts that are living the scenes. There was no blood and gore, no fighting scenes, yet as an audience you know those things happen every day, and the troopers are always aware of the consequences of these incidents. Telltale signs such as explosions in the distance, radio communication of attacks and roadside bombs sightings, as well as verbal accounts from the soldiers themselves, told a grim story for the predicament of their mission. And their mission changed day-by-day: one day it is a patrol around their sector, the other day might be a raid for insurgents or weapon caches, yet another day might be answering an emergency call for support. Just by being outside their complex means mortal danger for them, no matter from a stone, rifle, RPG, or a roadside bomb.

That said, since the barracks IS a palace, there are some really weird R&R for the Gunners, like a dip in the pool with a Snapple (no alcohol is officially allowed), or a poolside party after a successful raid, or risking one’s life for a whopper at the Burger King outside the complex. While the audience is free to place whatever judgment on the as they see, ultimately the troops are fighting the war for the survival of themselves and their buddies, not for WMD or the ousting of Saddam or even oil. Besides, the troops live in that set of the ‘show’, which most people would perceive when they watch their daily news and went back to their dinners. I guess those who will feel the most watching this film will be Americans with a conscience; that will give them something to chew on while they consider what had happened ever since their people voted G.W. Bush into office.

Hotel Rwanda – the genocide that comes with your main course

Unlike Iraq, Rwanda was somewhat different. The genocide of Tutsi people in the nation of Rwanda had horrified the world in the year 1994, yet due to the retreat of all western support and failure of UN and US from providing official sanction in stopping the massacre, people got killed, and the media moved on to other stories less dangerous to cover. While this is not intended to slam on the media, one of the characters in the film Hotel Rwanda, says the truth of people on the debacle: “If people see this footage, they’ll say, ‘Oh my God, that’s terrible,’ and they’ll go on eating their dinners.” Everyone, the media, the wealthy countries, all of us, lent a hand in allowing Tutsi people being killed in that bloody year.

Hotel Rwanda started with a peaceful scene with an uneasy undertone. Paul Rusesabagina was the manager of a Belgian luxury hotel in the Kigali, the capital city of Rwanda. He was well paid, has a lovely wife and three children, he did interesting work serving wealth westerners, built relationship with powerful people in the country with wit and cunningness for protection and procurement, and lived a comfortable life. But something isn’t right. Hutu and Tutsi people in the country was at war, settling blood feud that went back to German and Belgian colonial time. The actions of Tutsi rebels has not affect the everyday life of Tutsi citizens, but that is about to change. When Hutu started to systematically kill off Tutsi from the country, UN and America has refused to provide diplomatic and military support to intervene. All they did was evacuation of westerners; all the Tutsis has was a token force of UN peacekeepers that were mere doorstops against the Hutu mob. Somehow, the refugees has learnt that some Tutsis has seek refuge in the hotel, as Belgium has threatened retribution against the country on damage for Belgian property in Rwanda. Thus, refugees flocked to the hotel for safety. Paul has to make a choice: should he leave the refugees to die, which basically means he would had to drive his Tutsi wife away, or should he try his best and risk everything to save these people?

People compare this movie with Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. Yet, even though the feats that Rusesabagina pulled off is as great as Oscar Schindler’s, he was subjected to even greater odds, as his family and himself, as well as the lives of the refugees were at risk, comparing with Schindler, who was a member of Nazi, thus safe during the whole process of the rescue. By comparison, while Paul’s action is less of the selfless sacrifice that Oscar did, there was a necessity that Paul must address.

Directing wise, Terry George, as the director, is not Spielberg. Not that he had to be, because he has created a masterpiece in vivid image of how the Rwandans were abandoned by the west, and how Rusesabagina save the flock that he had at the hotel. Exercising less on graphic details of the Hutu atrocities, George relied more on the interaction of between the nervous yet calm Rusesabagina, played by Don Cheadle, and the rest of the cast, which included Nick Nolte as the Canadian UN officer, Joaquin Phoenix as Jack the camera man, and Jean Reno as the Belgium company president, which Rusesabagina served. The pace of the movie was tense, as the hotel was constantly under threat and the hint of impending disaster taxed the nerves of the refugees as well as the audience.

At the end, Hotel Rwanda is not a movie that you see for fun. You have to be in a certain mood to see it, or you will be in for a real shock. But that can be a good thing, as both films are works that questioned: how the abundance of information in this age has nullified the senses of the mass on man-made disasters, reducing such tragedy into news items that become history in a relatively short timeframe. How come people can do such horrible things to fellow countrymen, where hate and old feud played a major role. How the lack of initiative from the mass has failed to stop atrocities, when you and me and him and her choose not to care and help about things that are far from our immediate interest. And people die because of all these. Hotel Rwanda, as well as Gunner Palace, was the epitome of these things that we, as a human being, had to consider, for humanity as we know, rest upon our stance on such issues.